The idiocy of Tom Sherman

Of course the US is a democracy and as such a better type of
government than others mentioned, but foreign policy is an entity in
itself, democracy or not, and it doesn't help to confuse the two or
create non-sequitors like "all democracies have better foreign
policies".

Amen. But it's so much fun to criticize

Given the choice of freedom to carry guns or freedom to walk around in
public without encountering people with guns I know what I'd choose.

The government's ability to freely impose any anti-Constitutional controls
on the population they prefer?

I'm in the UK - I guess one benefit of not having a constitution is
that it doesn't get out of date. We had a lot of daft laws in the
nineteenth century but they all got repealed as they became archaic. I
mean, the death penalty for stealing a sheep, defacing London Bridge
or impersonating a Chelsea Pensioner. I think not, but the US
Constitution predates the repeal of all these. Not quite so easy to
change a constitution.

Andy

In article
,
Andy Evans wrote:

People should be free to be daft, at least to a degree. As a
former governor of my state observed, you can't legislate against
stupidity.

But I think you can - you can make guns illegal, smoking in public
spaces illegal, drugs illegal etc etc. We already have a legal system
that imposes penalties for all sorts of stupid and destructive
behaviour, and I believe that it is widely accepted.

Guns aren't illegal here, of course. Smoking in public spaces is banned
only because of the secondhand smoke problem, otherwise it would not be
the subject of legislation. Indeed, it is very important that Americans
keep smoking heavily because this is a major source of tax revenue. Our
rather schizophrenic anti-drug laws come from our Puritan heritage and
are, in the main, counterproductive and costly. And of course we still
have anti-homosexuality laws on the books in many places around the
country, and we'll even arrest alleged homosexuals in airport toilets
even when they haven't broken the law.

Given the choice of freedom to carry guns or freedom to walk around
in public without encountering people with guns I know what I'd
choose.

Well, pardner, 'round hereabouts a man's gun is second only to his penis
in importance to his masculine identity. We gots us a shiny new conceal
and carry law, so anyone you meet might be packin'. Mind yer manners.
You ain't got a gun, then yer just some sort of damned sissy liberal.
And just to show that gun rights are more important to Minnesotans than
property rights, under our law you can carry your concealed weapon onto
any private property (stores, churches, hospitals, someone's home, etc.)
you want without asking permission unless the property owner has posted
a sign saying you can't. This is America, dammit. God, guns and guts
made us great.

In article ,
"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

"Andy Evans" wrote in message

...

Given the choice of freedom to carry guns or freedom to walk around
in public without encountering people with guns I know what I'd
choose.

The government's ability to freely impose any anti-Constitutional
controls on the population they prefer?

Well, it's an interesting discussion. The Second Amendment, as (badly
and almost incomprehensibly) written, could be construed as preventing
the government from regulating arms ownership in any way whatsoever.
You want to own a machine gun? Go ahead. Mortar? Ditto. RPG? That
too. C4? Can't stop you. Your own private nukes arsenal? If you can
afford it, go ahead. The recent Supreme Court decision opened the way
for these scenarios and the current makeup of SCOTUS makes such
decisions possible.

Sure, those examples are absurd. The question is where the line can and
should be reasonably drawn. Reasonable people will disagree on where
than line is, unreasonable people will disagree even more vehemently and
in some cases violently.

In article
,
Andy Evans wrote:

Given the choice of freedom to carry guns or freedom to walk
around in public without encountering people with guns I know
what I'd choose.

The government's ability to freely impose any anti-Constitutional
controls on the population they prefer?

I'm in the UK - I guess one benefit of not having a constitution is
that it doesn't get out of date. We had a lot of daft laws in the
nineteenth century but they all got repealed as they became archaic.
I mean, the death penalty for stealing a sheep, defacing London
Bridge or impersonating a Chelsea Pensioner. I think not, but the US
Constitution predates the repeal of all these. Not quite so easy to
change a constitution.

On the other hand, you have Magna Carta which bore a strong influence on
the US Constitution. I don't know to what extent Magna Carta is
considered a working document in daily jurisprudence, whereas the
Constitution here is.

A core discussion in US legal circles is the extent to which the
Constitution- which comprises a tiny fragment of the mass of US law- is
a "living" document that is changeable and interpretable to account for
developments in technology and society versus being immutable and
absolute. Also part of this is the extent to which the Constitution
should be interpreted in terms of the discernable indent of its framers
versus a literalist interpretation (e.g., that Americans only have the
rights that are spelled out explicitly in the Constitution).

"Tim McNamara" wrote in message
...

Well, it's an interesting discussion. The Second Amendment, as (badly
and almost incomprehensibly) written, could be construed as preventing
the government from regulating arms ownership in any way whatsoever.

Funny thing is that the Second Amendment didn't give the framers any
problems at all. Strange that you have so much trouble reading it.

You want to own a machine gun? Go ahead. Mortar? Ditto. RPG? That
too. C4? Can't stop you.

When did an explosive become a firearm?

Your own private nukes arsenal? If you can
afford it, go ahead. The recent Supreme Court decision opened the way
for these scenarios and the current makeup of SCOTUS makes such
decisions possible.

Did you even bother to read the decision before commenting on it?

Sure, those examples are absurd. The question is where the line can and
should be reasonably drawn. Reasonable people will disagree on where
than line is, unreasonable people will disagree even more vehemently and
in some cases violently.

Pretending that there is a huge question about firearms is part of the
problem. The fact is that 90% of the citizens of this country are not
questioning the second amendment - only those whose entire purpose in life
is to make problems where none exist.

"Tim McNamara" wrote in message
...

And just to show that gun rights are more important to Minnesotans than
property rights, under our law you can carry your concealed weapon onto
any private property (stores, churches, hospitals, someone's home, etc.)
you want without asking permission unless the property owner has posted
a sign saying you can't. This is America, dammit. God, guns and guts
made us great.

Hmm apparently you don't understand that the Constitution overrules any
lesser laws. Also you seem to have missed the point that after gun control
laws were voided in places like Florida, crime took a HUGE drop. But of
course you may pretend otherwise.

Tim McNamara wrote:
In article
,
Andy Evans wrote:

Given the choice of freedom to carry guns or freedom to walk
around in public without encountering people with guns I know
what I'd choose.
The government's ability to freely impose any anti-Constitutional
controls on the population they prefer?
I'm in the UK - I guess one benefit of not having a constitution is
that it doesn't get out of date. We had a lot of daft laws in the
nineteenth century but they all got repealed as they became archaic.
I mean, the death penalty for stealing a sheep, defacing London
Bridge or impersonating a Chelsea Pensioner. I think not, but the US
Constitution predates the repeal of all these. Not quite so easy to
change a constitution.

On the other hand, you have Magna Carta which bore a strong influence on
the US Constitution. I don't know to what extent Magna Carta is
considered a working document in daily jurisprudence, whereas the
Constitution here is.

A core discussion in US legal circles is the extent to which the
Constitution- which comprises a tiny fragment of the mass of US law- is
a "living" document that is changeable and interpretable to account for
developments in technology and society versus being immutable and
absolute. Also part of this is the extent to which the Constitution
should be interpreted in terms of the discernable indent of its framers
versus a literalist interpretation (e.g., that Americans only have the
rights that are spelled out explicitly in the Constitution).

The truth in the US is that the final arbiter of the interpretation of
the Constitution, the Supreme Court, will make judgments based solely on
political factors (e.g. Bush v. Gore). Furthermore, the executive branch
can violate the Constitution at will, and the Congress will do nothing
since it is not "politically expedient".

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

Tom Kunich wrote:
"Tim McNamara" wrote in message
...

Well, it's an interesting discussion. The Second Amendment, as (badly
and almost incomprehensibly) written, could be construed as preventing
the government from regulating arms ownership in any way whatsoever.

Funny thing is that the Second Amendment didn't give the framers any
problems at all. Strange that you have so much trouble reading it.

You want to own a machine gun? Go ahead. Mortar? Ditto. RPG? That
too. C4? Can't stop you.

When did an explosive become a firearm?

But the Second Amendment says "arms", not firearms.

Your own private nukes arsenal? If you can
afford it, go ahead. The recent Supreme Court decision opened the way
for these scenarios and the current makeup of SCOTUS makes such
decisions possible.

Did you even bother to read the decision before commenting on it?

With a few McCain appointed justices, organizations such as Blackwater
might be allowed practically unlimited weaponry.

Sure, those examples are absurd. The question is where the line can and
should be reasonably drawn. Reasonable people will disagree on where
than line is, unreasonable people will disagree even more vehemently and
in some cases violently.

Pretending that there is a huge question about firearms is part of the
problem. The fact is that 90% of the citizens of this country are not
questioning the second amendment - only those whose entire purpose in
life is to make problems where none exist.

Citation for the 90%?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

Tim McNamara wrote:
In article
,
Andy Evans wrote:

People should be free to be daft, at least to a degree. As a
former governor of my state observed, you can't legislate against
stupidity.
But I think you can - you can make guns illegal, smoking in public
spaces illegal, drugs illegal etc etc. We already have a legal system
that imposes penalties for all sorts of stupid and destructive
behaviour, and I believe that it is widely accepted.

Guns aren't illegal here, of course. Smoking in public spaces is banned
only because of the secondhand smoke problem, otherwise it would not be
the subject of legislation. Indeed, it is very important that Americans
keep smoking heavily because this is a major source of tax revenue. Our
rather schizophrenic anti-drug laws come from our Puritan heritage and
are, in the main, counterproductive and costly. And of course we still
have anti-homosexuality laws on the books in many places around the
country, and we'll even arrest alleged homosexuals in airport toilets
even when they haven't broken the law....

Have to crack down on the "wide stance" minority, no?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”